First Drive: 2011 Honda CR-Z

The Enthusiast's Hybrid

'Econ' mode, which effectively restricts throttle action, enables the car to reach
58 mpg, but we found ourselves leaving it in sports mode as it offers quicker
response at both low and high speeds and suits the sporty characteristics of this
car down to a tee. Honda claims an average of 48.5 mpg for Japanese spec CR-Zs;
U.S.-spec manual cars are expected to achieve an EPA rating of 31/37 mpg
city/highway, while the CVT is expected to achieve 37/38 mpg. In global
eco-performance car terms, those mileage numbers are a little disappointing,
frankly: For example, the bigger, heavier, more powerful, diesel powered VW Golf GTD
will deliver 32 mpg in the city and 50 mpg on the highway on the European driving
cycle, and is about a full second faster to 60 mph.

The good news for enthusiast drivers is that while the Insight is just plain harsh,
the CR-Z is firm but compliant. Enhanced rigidity throughout the body structure and
significant revisions to the torsion bar setup on the rear suspension help explain
why the car handles and rides much better. Honda has paid special attention to the
CR-Z's steering, too. Tomobe had a secret benchmark, the steering of his own BMW
325i Coupe, and the revised EPS steering is therefore superbly weighted and
delivers excellent feel.

Honda engineers also required special editions of Bridgestone's Potenza R050 or
Yokohama's Advan A10, co-developed with both tiremakers. Tomobe says his handling
evaluation team had Keiichi 'Drift King' Tsuchiya do some back to back laps in three
sets of tires -- eco tires, high performance gumballs, and the special CR-Z rubber --
with Tsuchiya concluding that the latter type offer the best combination of grip,
economy and low noise levels.

While the Insight employs a system that switches between hydraulic and regenerative
braking, the CR-Z's main braking system is hydraulic. "We use a full hydraulic brake
system that employs the regenerative braking only as an 'assist mechanism'," says
Tomobe. Unlike the current crop of hybrids, which deliver a somewhat synthetic feel,
the CR-Z offers sure-footed stopping power every time.Norio Tomobe acknowledges that the CR-Z is a bold step into an uncertain market. But
he is convinced Honda has launched the hybrid coupe at the right time. With its bold
looks, high quality, and genuine driver appeal, the CR-Z could stimulate interest in
hybrids among customers who view the great gas mileage the technology delivers as a
useful side benefit, and not simply the reason for buying the car in the first
place. Oh, and watch out for the high performance Mugen version in coming in 2011.

I own a CR-Z unlike most (if not all of you here) and I am tired of seeing all this non-sense about this car. The price of the car in US is under 20K and the fuel consumption in the real world is way better than the EPA estimates. I averaged in brand new car a 6.15 L/100Km (45.93 Imperial mpg or 38.25 US mpg) after the first 3 tanks of gas of city driving only with Sport or Normal mode on, never on Eco because I like to be the first one from the stoplight. There are other CR-Z owners that get in the 50's US mpg (or 60's Imperial mpg) while driving carefully in Eco mode. It is fast and nimble enough for a daily driver in the city and turns heads all the time (unlike the boring Golfs or Civics you see everywhere). If you need a fast car you go buy a Porsche 911 (997TT) not a slow Golf GTI or Civic SI. I am happy with my daily driver and it did not cost me a fortune to buy.

I would have to agree with alot of the feedback so far. What a let down. In it's concept stage, the CRZ looked promising. Once Honda released details on the drivetrain, it became evident what this is. A poor attempt at playing on nostalgia. In no way s this like a CRX. My "99" prelude gets better gas mileage, looks better(imo), and hopefully outperforms this thing. I average 30-33mpg and enjoy vtec often. Epic fail!

This car may make sense for Japan, but for the U.S.A, I find really no compelling reason for paying over $25,000 for a two seat hybrid that is bascially all show and no go. It is a given that this car's powertrain is sadly lacking(I mean seriously, my 10 year old minivan will embarrass the CR-Z in acceleration and so will most of the cars on the road today. To quote one test driver,' as you run the engine out to redline, the noise is great but not matched by much forward progress;...There isn't the low-end torque you'd expect from an electrically assisted drivetrain." This car would have been a much better car without the hybrid system--besides making the car slow, heavier,and more expensive, the engine stop/start feature will sometime cut/off the engine while coasting. As for the supposed superb handling, another review stated, 'there's lots of body roll in the corners...but the Cr-Z is far from the most agile small coupe around-a Mini or a BMW 1 series would leave it for dead on a twisting road."

This car is even slower than I originally thought. Apparently in a recent test drive in Japan by Road and Track, the CR-Z with CVT could only manage 0-60 in 10.5 seconds. This would mean the latest Prius gets superior gas mileage to the CR-Z and is faster than the CR-Z (and Toyota doesn't even market the Prius as "sporty"). Again what is the point of this car? Why should anyone even consider this car since it fails as high mpg hybrid and its so slow that it would have trouble keeping up with almost every car on the road today (including econoboxes, minivans. $25,000 is just too much to pay for a car that has such lackluster performance. Honda would have been much better off if it had made the CR-Z without the hybrid powertrain (it contributes very little to the performance of this car other than make it slower, heavier and more expensive).

way to piss off the american buyers honda!!!!!!If you were smart you would offer this car in three modes hybrid,base,si hint not all americans want them damb batteries in their cars, and way overpriced!

BTW when honda makes a out and out sports car, they can't screw it up and they haven'tright?someone correct me if i'm wrongall i know is that whenever honda does come out with something they claim to be super sporty and performance oriented, they have never let me downin the cr-z's case, i think it is a single man/woman's car or an extra car apart from a cliche family's minivan/ suv and midsize sedan.This will be a great addition

I realize some people's disappointment over this vehicle is a little bit too exaggerated =.=This vehicle was never meant to pull massive g's or go to 60 in less than 7 seconds. That is not what fun to drive is about. This is car that will not let you down in the twisty bits and the manual is there for you when you don't really care about fuel economy and you just wanna have some fun. Sure there are many products that are gas powered and get same or higher EPA fuel economy, but honda's hybrids have always exceeded that by 10-25% at least. And thats not with hypermiling. I also think that many people think big of Honda and expect a lot from them (ie: nsx, s3000, civic si turbo) but we have to remember that Honda isnt a really big company and it takes a lot out of them to design a high performance car with such a unique character (s2000).

no kidding, that is too funny that their engineer drives a BMW.and a 1993 Fiesta weighed in at over 1000 lbs less than the CRZ so good luck matching that mpg with a modern car. The car companies could make cars that light if the customers didn't care about things like sound deadening, comfort, features and oh yeah, living through collisions.

Looking at it from an angle it is not all that bad, but the side profile view shows quite a bit of front overhang.I can save $1K and hop aboard a Mazdaspeed 3 with twice the horsepower. $24K will also get you inside a base MX-5. Honda just lost it, wait, Honda keeps losing it (new Pilot design, Crosstour, poor-man's Prius-Insight, etc)

Honda financial has a moron by the name of Garvin working for them who is the rudest and dumbest person I have ever spoken with. He was so insulting that my family and I will never buy another Honda again. The dealer knows me because of my status in the community and I told them that once they fire dumbass Garvin (from the Atlanta, Georgia office) I will consider buying a Honda. In the interim I will work to discourage everyone I know from buying a Honda.

I'm tired of people who cite the Miata as a justification for the CR-Z. The current generation Miata has 166 hp and does 0-60 in 7.0 seconds. The CRZ in not even close to these performance specs--and I would venture to guess that a rear wheel drive, lighter Miata would actually have better handling then a heavier FWD platform like the CR-Z.

You see? This is why car companies should leave old classic models alone. Ford touch the SHO and gave us a fat pig. Honda touch the CRX/CRZ and might be giving us a slow and low MPG small hatch that is no better than the Fit. Now I hope Toyota make the FT86 properly.

The last CRX with an automatic got 25/31. Sure the 49 state HF is rated at 40/47 with the new numbers, and the California HF is at 36/44, but the HF was super slow, the proper comparison for it is the first slow Insights. The new CR-Z is right in between the regular CRX and the CRXSi in acceleration. The only problem with this version of the CR-Z is the price, it needs to be $20 K and there needs to be an Si version with a bigger engine (1.8) for $22 K.

Lets see it is $7K more than a Fit. Slower than a MT Fit and doesn't get really any better gas mileage.Plus the Fit has double the space. Why get this over a Fit again?I bet my lowered Fit with a rear sway bar will handle better than this thing. Anybody wanna bet me? ;-)Lets see it Motortrend I want a stock Fit vs stock CR-Z comparison. I bet there will be barely a difference performance/mpg wise.

HUH!? I don't get this car. Neither fish nor foul. Although the package is ok, the power train puzzles me. Why not produce two versions of the same car? One for go and one for outstanding economy. Seems like a compromise vehicle where the sum equals less than the parts. FAILURE. At least it's not as ugly as the Crosstourer. Or maybe it is.

How could they call this sport or the enthusiasts hybrid when Honda's family sedans and minivans out accelerate the CR-Z. It will also probably have high insurance premiums. Maybe some Honda loyalists will give it to his lucky son on his 16th birthday. Gee thanks dad, much better than the 2011 V6 Mustang (Sarcasm).

Asura...driven slowly enough a friggin Ox Cart can handle like a sports car. Where is the "Sporting" in 9.0 sec 0-60 times? CRX-Si's were doing better than that, and getting only slightly less MPG, 20+ years ago. Did Al Gore take over Honda when we were not looking?

Good luck finding "discerning and environmentally-conscious 21st century" Buyers for this turd on wheels...This Honda owner will keep what he has, as a reminder of the days when Honda made cars you could be proud to own, and move over to Porsche or Nissan for something newer to park next to his S2k.Honda is dead to me.

Im not wowed by this car at all! 37 mpg? Big whop. My 530i achieved that today on the PIP crusing at 50mph. Not to mention this car's performance specs dont exactly fit the claim of "enthusiast's hybrid". The price is more than that of an Accord, and the looks of it are just awkwardly ugly.I just cant believe MT gave this car a POSITIVE review.

People are all concerned with speed from the get go, but if I remember correctly, Honda was aiming for the handling of a sports car. And if it can handle like a sports car, handling at speeds much faster than other cars, then Honda Succeeded. Look at the Miata, and the Best Driver's Car.If the CR-Z can handle like a sports car, which it probably can considering how Honda can make the Accord handle gracefully, then I think a lot more people will be surprised.

The Fit only gets 28/35. The only way to get a Fit with stability control and traction control is to get the $19 K Fit sport with navigation. The hybrid has to cost more than that. The Prius costs $23 K. That means the CR-Z needs to have a price of $20-22 K. Honda should have just dropped the 1.8 from the Civic into the Insight, retuned the suspension and transmission, and sold it for $22 K.

Honda should have worked on a Hybrid Fit, and then a Fit Type-R. This CR-Z is a waste of time. 1.The MPG isn't really that much better than the2.Fit the handling of the Fit can be improved to be close to the CR-Z3.Storage is much better in the Fit.4.The Fit is not 23K!!!!

This car is good new, good new indeed! Keep'em coming HOnda (: I say a couple more generations of cars just like this and we'll be in business to give you a bail out, or you can ask the japanese government like toyota did. I'm excited

The concept of a Hybrid car is nonsense. Hybrid engines do not reduce gas emission much but only adds more toxic pollutant to the environment. Do you know how much of pure acids and other extremely toxic substances are contained in a battery of a hybrid engine? This one battery from a hybrid car is as bad as 1500 notebook computer batteries. It's HUGE! The government hasn't even figured out how we can safely dispose those consumed batteries without contaminating the environment yet. So far, we have been sending the consumed batteries to third world countries to bury them in their ground.

How about comparing apples to apples? The CVT CR Z will get 37/38 EPA. The federalized Golf automatic gets 30/42 which is an average of 34 which the CVT beats in both city and highway. As an economical hybrid the CR-Z works. By the way the old Festiva is way out of the hunt at only 27/30 with the new numbers.If you insist on the manual the Golf gets 30/40 which is worse than the automatic. The CR-Z gets 31/37, which is worse than the Golf. The old Festiva is actually in the hunt at 30/38. The moral of the story is if you are buying a new economy car get an automatic. Maybe that is why no one else offers a hybrid one with a manual. If you want a sport compact don't buy a 1.5 hybrid or a 2.0 Diesel.

Motor Trend has been positive about this car from the onset as there first article estimated the 0-60 in 8 second range and never questioned at all the power to wait ratio of this car. I also noticed that the writer states it did 0-60 in 9.0 seconds flat and then on the specs chart is states the 0-60 is "estimated". I also saw the article for the UK which stated estimated 0-62 times to be 10.1 seconds). All in all it confirms that the car is slow and I'm surprised the writer did not state that it was slow and underpowered and needed more horsepower. Although to be fair he did point out that the VW golf TDI was a full second faster than the CR-Z. Bottom line--Honda needed to inject much more power to this car.

Good lord, if any of you were my children I'd disown you. It's not an economy car, hardcore hybrid, or sports car: it's a sport hybrid. A class all it's own. An MGB, Porsche 944, Mk1 Miata, Mk1 VW GTI among many others aren't "fast." They are fun to drive, and that's what this is going for. Again, it sits lower than the economy cars so it doesn't flop all over itself.You're making it out as though it's running around poking at 370Z's and the Mustang V6 and it's not. Nor is it claiming to have higher FE. Is the butt ugly? Yes. Is it going to set my hair abalze? Not particularly. Is it going to be as fun as a leaky RWD roadster from the 1960's? No. Nor did it ever promise that. It seems foolish to bang on about the same things as you all are.Also, Peter Lyon isn't an MT staffer. All MT did was use his words. Don't get upset at them, all they did was pay a guy who had beat them to it/freelanced it.